With an ever-growing interest in cars with patina, maybe now is a good time to step back and discuss the terminology for such cars. We’re not necessarily looking to slap labels on every trusty rusty dusty car out there, but we would like to provide a little more definition and depth to these terms. So what makes a car original? What makes one unrestored? (And what makes one a complete clunker?) What warrants calling one a barn find? When would you apply the survivor label (trademark notwithstanding)? And where do you draw the line between preservation and restoration?

54 Responses to “Open Diff: Original versus unrestored”

My thinking is ‘original’ would apply to original parts, sheetmetal, drive train… but could be restored. Unrestored or survivor would be as closely to untouched as possible, allowing for mechanical repairs.

I like them both. I like to see the cool unrestored cars that I would leave “as is”, and I like to see the restored cars that look better tham the day they rolled of the assembly line.

If you want to see a great example of retoring a car underneath while leaving the “patina” on the paint, watch “Fast N’ Loud” on Discovery Channell, when they restore a ’59 Rambler Cross Country. Very Cool result.

Original or unrestored, both could have normal wear and tear mechanical items replaced.
Original implies only replacement of mechanical wear and tear – i.e. all interior pieces, sheet metal, internal engine and transmission parts are the ones installed at the factory on the assembly line.
Unrestored allows for replacement of internal mechanical parts, repaint, etc but only while the car was still in regular use and due to breakage or wear – i.e. a minor accident, valve job etc. and more than 75% of the car is still what the factory installed.
A 40 year old car that has 200k miles, new seats, 2 repaints, and a replacement block over time doesn’t qualify as unrestored,because too much of it, while done in regular service, didn’t come off the line.
That’s just my opinion and I’m sure others think differently.

To me, original means just that…the vehicle is substantially as it was when it left the factory. All you have to do is maintain it, and do minor mechanical and cosmetic repairs. For all intents and purposes it appears largely as new (or gently used).

Unrestored means that the vehicle may not have perfect paint or interior, and may have had mechanical repairs done over the years, but is still substantially as it was when it rolled out of the factory. It’s still running and drivable (thus ‘Drivable Dreams’!). It’s never had to be taken apart and restored, but it COULD be done if an owner chose to do so.

I was recently at a car show that had some real polished jewels on display and then a guy rolled in with a 30′s Willys convertable (not sure of the exact year) that looked like he had just pulled it out of the barn yesterday. People swarmed around it. Maybe some are dreaming of what they would do with it while others are just taking in the beauty of the well-aged body and grease-caked engine, but it certainly drew a lot of attention. I like both restored and un, as well. Each has it’s pluses.
What I don’t like are the “resto-mods” where an old body is placed upon a new chassis with a new V-8 and an interior that belongs in a modern car. They look nice but it’s no longer a classic car.

I believe its a personal preference. What trips my trigger is the evolution of technology and I am a consumer, not a collector. As such , all my vehicles are stock and represent what automotive technology was when the vehicle was built. The intent is to experience motoring when motoring was an adventure.

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I love ‘em all. Some restored, some original barn finds that are just the way they were found, resto-mods with new modern drivetrains on old bodies, etc. I think there is plenty of room for all of them in our hobby. I even don’t mind an old guy takes the ’73 Fury 4 door he bought new and that he waxes monthly and puts some Keystone Classics on it and curb feelers and shows it at the local shows or the kid who got a new-used Honda and he puts the tape stripes on it after he’s blacked it all out. Are they my taste? No, but I appreciate almost whenever anyone adds their personal touches to their vehicle.

My favorite, probably due to my age (46) are the 60′s and 70′s muscle cars and disco-era Camaros and Trans Ams that are raked a little with the wide reverse Cragar and 50′s on the back with 70′s on the front, termed “Day Two.”

But whatever the case, the best thing about the car hobby is that you can make whatever you want out of your car and enjoy it. God Bless America that we’re able to do that (for the most part, lol).

This is a very hard thing to do. I track Stanley Steamers, and the words “original”, “restored”, “survivor”, etc., have been used by everyone for every purpose, until they are actually no longer useful to characterize a car. For instance, “restored” is commonly used to refer to Stanleys that have been built from scratch, with mostly freshly-reproduced parts. “Original” is used to refer to cars like that, too, with the rationalization that each part is as accurate a reproduction of an actual Stanley part as technology and research will allow.

I think the actual issue behind the attempt to categorize and label can be worded: “How much of the car I’m looking at, left the factory at the same time, assembled into a single car?” And this means mechanical parts, body parts, and surfaces. (I will exempt short-term consumables, like tires and filters.)

1. At one end of the Stanley spectrum are cars that are complete and have been untouched since the before the antique car hobby began – ’20s and earlier. There are a few. Very interesting, because the odds are high that the car is much like it left the factory. It must be kept in mind that early owners made repairs, replaced broken parts, and made modifications, so such an example may not be a perfect snapshot of production at the time.

2. Next are cars that began like that, and have had a minimum number of mechanical repairs and replacements made to allow them to operate. There are a few of these, too, and they’re similarly interesting because it’s pretty clear that much of the car has been unaltered since it left the factory. Pretty much the spirit of AACA’s HPOF.

3. Next are cars that began like the first ones, but have experienced total restoration as we know it, starting in the late ’40s and continuing to today. A beautiful object comes out, but there are lots of replacement parts, body and mechanical. Paint, plating, and upholstery that were installed at the factory have been destroyed. Mechanical parts may even have been modernized or upgraded to improve ease of use.

4. Next are cars that degraded all the way to a small pile of parts, that stayed together since they left the factory. Popular Stanley models are particularly subject to being in this category, as they are mostly wood, which disappears leaving the few metal parts behind. There are highly talented artisans who regularly fabricate accurate Stanley bodies – probably with more attention to detail and quality than the original body builder in Amesbury. Wheels, etc. are easily obtainable.

5. Next are cars that are begin with some factory-made parts that have been gathered together – an engine from here, pumps from there, an axle from somewhere else. It’s no problem going on to create a complete car – every Stanley part is available from some supplier some place. Many 1909-1911 Stanleys fall into this category. There was a guy operating in the ’60s through the ’90s, a great body builder and talented mechanic, who was famed for doing an awful lot of these. And it’s been going on for a long time – I have an article from 49 years ago describing a project that started with 4 engines and resulted in 4 identical cars.

6. And finally there are cars which are fabricated from 100% newly-made parts. And I don’t have a problem saying “That’s a 1908 Stanley that was built in 2010.”

But which of these cars are original? Which ones are preserved? Restored? Survivors? Reproductions? Re-creations? At the moment I think you could find someone who would apply almost any one of those labels to almost any one of those categories.

I’m with you Mark. I have 62 Tempest that is largly stock except for body repairs and paint. It has no power options and a stock single stage master cylinder. In its day it was pretty much a standard sedan with interesting engineering. I drive my cars and this car is not really fun to drive for the average person. I also have a 66 Bonneville convert that has an engine modification, disc brakes, a faster than stock steering gear box, enhanced sway bars and gas shocks. It drives much like a new car and nothing like a 1966 Pontiac. The car presents as a stock car with the originial hubcaps. I like my cars and I think the owner of the car gets to call the shots. I don’t build my cars to sell them; I build them to keep them.

I agree with Mark Jackson completely. It’s all good and I appreciate everyone’s position on their own cars, whatever it is. They’re not all to my taste but, hey, that’s what this hobby is about. Ain’t America wonderful?

My originally beat-to-hell ’46 Chev Suburban has 21st century mechanicals and electronics with a mildly hot rodded body and (hopefully soon) a custom interior. It’s my vision, my creation and I’ll drive it and use it almost every day and enjoy it for what I’ve created.

That said, here’s my take on definitions:

Original/Unrestored: Just what is says. No repaints, no body work, no re-upholstery. Maintenance as required using correct, original type parts, including original (correct) type tires. Patina (see below) in place. May or may not be running.

Original restored: With original (correct) type parts, paint, upholstery, etc. to original specifications. As it “left the factory” condition.

Restored: Restored using appropriate new or NOS parts. Complete body, mechanical, interior refurbishment. Paint / upholstery may not be original in appearance to that specific vehicle.

…and all the shades of gray in between on each of these categories. Even some marque experts will disagree on the state of restoration, preservation and originality.

Hot rods, resto-ods, rat rods, etc, etc: The very personal creations of the builders/owners on platforms of their choosing using anything that floats their boat to make their vision truly their own.

We need to properly name cars by where there parts came from,ie from the factory at the same moment,available from the factory for that car,from a factory on a car,many factory parts,few factory parts.These would be original,restored,cool,resto-mod,kit car.

First, foremost and always — these are Motor Vehicles. They are not Investments, they are not “objects d’art”, they are not items of veneration. They were designed and built to go down the road. So:

* If they are Original but can’t drive, they are a collection of parts and little more. I have felt for some time that those who venerate junk are trying to create some monetary value out of doing nothing other than transporting the thing here and there.

* If they are well-maintained Original and Can drive, they should. Provided that they don’t comprise a hazard to the occupants or other vehicles on the road. Minor cosmetic flaws that derive from time don’t really matter.

* If when found they were so far gone that they needed to be Restored, great! Resurrecting something from a pile of rusty junk is a good and noble thing. A rusted-out chassis, regardless of age, is Not something worth looking at and cannot be driven. Putting the vehicle back into its original shape means that the substance of the thing is back among us again, and its sound and feel can be enjoyed by drives and spectators as it was meant to be originally.

* Over-restored is to take a reasonable virtue into ridiculous realms. There are no cars that should be genuinely Better than new. As New works just fine.

* Modified is to take the aesthetic bits and create something new and interesting from it. Not far from me there’s a 1939 Cadillac business coupe that has been cosmetically restored to a fare-thee-well, but it has a modern drivetrain, disc brakes hidden within something that looks like a drum (and those were notoriously poor), suspension components far superior to the originals. It looks wonderful going down the road, and it can go down the road and hold its own without overheating, can stop within currently reasonable distances, so it can be Used As A Car — the highest and best use of any vehicle out there.

I like them all, appreciate each for what it is, can see the workmanship and materials among them, and enjoy them greatly when I get a chance to see or drive them.

There’s no reason for a controversy. A restored 1939 Buick Limited fully road-capable is neither better nor worse than a pile of rust on a flatbed, depending on what someone wants to see.

But I know which one I’d prefer to own — the former. Anything that must be trailered from place to place is no longer a Car. It’s just a full-scale model.

“All Original” in my book is just that…everything as the factory made it…with no restoration. This and “unrestored” are the same thing to me.

“Survivor” is the same thing…but a car exceptionally well preserved.

Anything else is “restored” to some level…a “stock restoration” would be one restored to original specs…and any upgrades or modifications start taking it into the custom category.

“Patina” is just that…Mother Nature’s handywork aging things. The best “patina” is one totally undisturbed…the whole car with an equal fade and color, etc.

My most pleasurable times in life are when Im dragging some old car out of a barn and getting it back into the world again. Preservation…not Restoration…that is where things are these days. You restore a car…you hide that history and lose that “artifact factor” completely. And to have something that looks, smells and feels the passage of time is a much more emotional experience in my opinion.

I have a 81 Checker that I described as a mildly street rodded survivor. External appearance is stock with aging, right down to the paint cracks that most unrestored models show over the welds even though, over the years most that paint has been redone at “driver” level when needed. To the best of my knowledge, the sheet metal is original except for a fender / door damaged in a wreck and replaced with NOS parts. It has a new FI motor similar to the original that I took care to use old accessories and V-belt drive so the appearance is almost identical. Currently the original interior is showing it’s age, so I’ll probably reproduce it.

I also have 89 Ramcharger (owned since 6 months old) that is truly original right down to the clear coat paint issues. Other than mechanical repairs, windshield replacement, some rocker rust repair, and a few mods like running boards, Lund visor and AR wheels / Eagles, it is as it left the factory. Not quite a survivor since it has some visual mods but most people would consider it to be one. Years ago, this would have been called a used car.

We really need a new term to describe maintained survivors with mild upgrades for reliability and safety. At one time, those were called street rods. Maybe there should be a “modernized survivor” or “maintained survivor” category. To me, they are just “drivers”.

I think that original and unrestored may be the same thing unless the car was restored with all its original parts including screws, nuts, clips and so on. I own two Barn Finds; one that sat under a tree for five years, is 34 years old andis literally all original (except for oil filters, brakes and tires) and the other literally in storage in a Barn (a Lincoln) which I heard about from a very reticent maintenance man. So a Barn find ti me is what it says; unrestored means the car is untouched, clunkers are what you find in Nebraska when you are out looking for Barn finds, usally with a tree growing through the roof, and patina I thought was an adjective defining the untouched vehicle.

My 2cents, I feel a restored car is one that has been taken down to just a body and put back together with the original parts, cleaned up, rebuilt or polished. Items that couldn’t be put back were subbed for NOS or repro. I also own a car I bought last year, I call an unrestored survivor, it was original right down to the paint, interior, belts and hoses, tires. The car is showroom “new”, but I replaced the 30+ year old tires, belts, hoses and shocks as they were leaking, car has 15500 original miles and I wanted to drive it without any break down issues from old rubber, also replaced all the brake hoses.

This is a HOT topic with a lot of us old car guys .Some clubs have dropped the , origional unrestored class because who wants to not agree with a car owner if the owner states , my car is all origional the guy i bought it from told me it was.

I my book, this is where the Hollywood screws up. Whenever a film is to portray a certain year, they do a pretty good job of getting the correct cars. (A 1948 Chevrolet does not belong in a WWII film. ) The problem is that all the cars are perfect and shiny, with pure white whitewalls. It wasn’t really that way.

All of the comments here show that these machines are in all possible states of presentation and as such, defining them would be a very subjective thing. As long as these auto’s are presented with an honest description, that is about all one might be able to reasonably expect. As always, Caveat Emptor.

I’ve seen many a TV show with a discovered barn find that looked highly staged.

It would be nice to have common definitions especially for classified advertising. However, anybody taking the lead can expect universal dissension because they will eventually be in disagreement with almost everybody. Enforcement is another complication; the term “classic” is defined by an organization but the defintion is almost universally ignored.

My personal opinion is terms such as “original” and “restored” need subcategories e.g. “restored to xxxxx standard”, “origiinal as raced” and “unrestored origiinal”.

In the end, publishers of classified ads, insurance companies and judging authorities for respective events define the terms within their limited span of control.

I think that the best is still to have an original unrestored car as long as it is safe and reliable. I’ve seen some that are far from that. If the car is worn out and deteriorated over the years, then restoration is what needs to be done.

I have an orginal ’49 Chev 4 door Deluxe. It has 42,000 miles on it and I know the entire history of the car. It’s always been garaged and never driven in the winter. I’m going to have to install a new rear engine seal and probably reseal the transmission and rear axle but I call that maintenance. The paint has faded slightly and I’m having a tug-o-war with myself to refrain from giving it a thorough buffing. I think I’ll leave it and drive it.

My ’47 Ford pickup is another matter. Despite my being the 2nd owner, the truck spent a lot of years with the original owner as a rock hauler on a farm. It’s a no-brainer as what’s going to happen with it.

I have a ’54 Meteor that’s a driver but it’s had at least one (rather poor) repaint and it’s showing some rust in the typical places. To achieve it’s original glory, I’m sure, a restoration is in order for that one as well. But I don’t mind driving it until that happens.

Boy! I doubt there is a definitive answer? I mean, no “old ride,” defined as 1970 or earlier) is still sporting the battery installed by the factory. Nor should it still be wearing the original tires. Yet, I have seen people lower the status of a car with these routine changes.

To me a car is originial/unrestored if it has a new battery, new tires (even if radial when it was born with bias plys) or replacement spark plugs, etc. So long as the mechanicals and body have not been changed/modified it is “unrestored.”

I like most all that has been said. I like most all of various iterations of autos.
Two cross the line for me:
1. Unrestored/unrestored and undrivable (that 1911 Oldsmobile with the tires rotting off comes to mind). What’s the point?
2. Created “patina” – often a favorite of the pickup crowd. Really – purposely making it look old and more beat up? Something fraudulent about that. . .

I’m OK with both original and restored cars, but have problems with the extremes at either end of the spectrum. I am not a fan of over-restored cars that one often sees listed here and elsewhere with megabucks pricetags, attributing the air in the spare tire as original, repro stampings on things, re-created overspray, etc. But I am equally disdaining of some of the “driveable dreams” Mr. Lentinello likes to show in HCC, some of which seem sadly neglected and one pothole away from the crusher. An honestly worn but still complete and sound original car is interesting, especially if the flaws tell a story and are not simply the result of neglect and abuse.

A car is original only once. Anything to improve on a part, or all, of the car is restoration. Even if a car has been repainted the original color, it is restored to original color, but the original paint is gone forever.

A barn find is exactly what is implied. A car found in a shelter that’s been sitting unused.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel let’s take a look at the definitions developed by the antique furniture and art world and adapt from that. There is a long history there of wrestling with the same question.

I have a 1965 Corvair 4door. 51000 mi. I can document the original title, one owner car. I purchased the car in 2007 with bias ply tires. The amount of work I put into reviving it reflected the oil sticker on the door that indicated the last oil change was 237 miles and 27 years before. All I have done to it was to make run again. New gas tank, fuel lines, carb kits and limited brake work. Steering wheel and dash is uncracked and the back seat and trimwork is unworn. Therefore I consider this one a “survivor.”
I have shown this car 3 years at the World of Wheels in Kansas City. My first year, when I arrived at the show, I declared the car as a “survivor” and they said they had no such class. The only class they had was “Restored.” So I showed my car 3 years in this class…… along side cars that were truly restored…… Making people wonder why this car with original patina, door dings and age in the show in the first place. WoW needs to add a class for my type of car that is NOT titled “Restored.”

I saw an early 50′s Buick straight 8 with Dyna Flow driving through the Walmart parking lot about a month ago. It looked rough and sounded rougher.But it looked complete, I asume the people were dirt poor. If it were me in the same situation I would sell it and try for a later model, even if it were a clunker. Someone with means might want it while it’s still in relatively restoreable condition…

We could debate infinite possibilities of what defines each label, however I don’t think that’s what is important. What really matters is what each owner decides is right for them and their vehicle. Sure, if the vehicle is being judged it needs to be classified, but even that can raise numerous discussions of what belongs in what category. I just think people are too focused on putting things in boxes and labelling them.

For example, I am a person who tends to lean towards preserving much of the originality of a vehicle if it’s in really good condition to start with. Restoration is fine with me in most of those cases as well. However, if I wanted to hot rod or customize a vehicle, I tend to not want to touch one of those because they are fewer and further between to locate. I would find one that needs a lot of work, since that’s what your going to tear it apart and do that anyway. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who would find a creampuff and tear it apart to build a street rod, rat rod, chopped low rider, etc. I don’t agree, but often their philosophy is they don’t want to start with a bucket of bolts; they want to stast with a clean slate.

That said, I have a 1972 Impala with 12k original certified miles on it. It’s been in my family since day one, so I am quite sure of the history. Everything is original and clean save for tires, battery and muffler/tailpipe. So is that defined as a survivor or what?

“Barn Find” is one of the most mis- and over- used terms in auto advertising now. Lets break it down to what is should mean: “Barn”- the car has been stored for many years in some sort of structure, be it literally a barn, or a garage, or a root cellar, etc. “Find” (and this is key) implies that no one or virtually no one knew it was there, and thus someone “found” it. Joe Blow dragging his 1988 Mustang GT out of the garage where he parked it 3 years ago because it would not pass state inspection does not constitute a barn find!!

When I was (much) younger, Ford Times defined Antique as Model T or earlier, Classic as Model A till the start of WWII. Anything newer was just a new or used car. At that time I was in love with the early Lincoln Continental..

By contrast, present definitions would almost call my present ride classic – 1991 Nissan Primera (Infiniti G20 on you side of the Pacific)

What most people mix up is RESTORED TO ORIGINAL ( Stock ) and ORIGINAL those are to very diffrent things.

RESTORED TO ORIGINAL means we worked really hard to bring this car back to how it would of looked in 19XX with no modifications. OR WE PUT THE CAR BACK TO STOCK.

ORIGINAL or UNRESTORED Means this car has never been messed with. Except for maintenance ie tires, battery, plugs, belts, hoses, the things that you are told to replace in the owners manual on a schedule.

Some things just wear out.

The problem are the guys who lie thru their teeth and call repainted cars original or unrestored.

I just looked at a early 1950′s Cadillac Sedan in the Hershey car corral, and the owner told me “she is all original” Seeing paint lines and overspray I said “With one repaint?” His reply “Nope that is supposed to be like that.”

That guy was a LIAR, and the problem is a guy wanting to have an UNRESTORED ORIGINAL CAR, that has no clue what to look for will buy that car, take it to his local show and tell all his buddies “My car is UNRESTORED ORIGINAL” and they will all say wow, thats cool.

IF YOUR CAR HAS BEEN PAINTED IT IS NOT ORIGINAL IT IS RESTORED.

I know that statement is going to irk a bunch of guys who think otherwise, but it is the truth.

Years ago true car collectors hunted down real unrestored original examples and they commanded premium prices, now that articles have been written about this everyone who has a stock appearing automobile thinks their car is unrestored or original.

The truth is most people do not know enough about how cars are made, and how cars should look to really know what they are looking at.

Before you pay big money for a car just because it is supposed to be unrestored or original ask someonewho knows, maybe a trip to a local body shop will answer the question.

WHO CARES? Altho it is in the nature of Car People, like enthusiasts of all kinds [gun, plane, - stamp?] to continuously classify and re-classify, nit-picking away until you too often forget the FUN of those early days when a CAR was a fresh and exciting thing, for this one I’ll sit it out, and simply try to look at the vehicle from the AESTHETIC and EXPERIENTIAL [GESTALT?] viewpoint.

When a car goes past you on the road and you look at it and it really GRABS you – perhaps because of its exceptionally beautiful lines, or an evocation of an era, or simply a “blast from the past” – does it really matter whether it’s an old beater or a pristine resto?
I remember road-testing a Rolls-Royce Cloud in immaculate condition once, and not getting a glance, but yet hopping in my clapped-out XK140 and always turning heads – “What the hell was THAT?”
Likewise, tho it’s not an automobile, I had my beat-up old Ferguson out last summer with its terminally faded re-coats of paint and homemade spray rig, and decided to drive down to the local tractor show. The locals deserted their urethane-coated Parade Queens and flocked to my rig like flies on….well, you get the idea. Look! a REAL ‘working tractor’!

Get it? They’re ALL enjoyable; a beautiful car is a beautiful car even on an “Abandoned Autos” calendar. An ugly one? Sometimes even a frame-off won’t help.

There has been a ’57 Chevy advertised in the paper -not Hemmings, where the good stuff is! -and it really gets under my skin: “completely original, had a frame-off restoration”. Original? No. Not to me. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. I also agree that the definition of “barn find” seems to be getting a little loose. In my mind, it means something that was parked at least 25 or 30 years ago, and that’s almost stretching it.

I like them all. But there sure is a point when an unrestored original just needs to be restored. It can be a fine line between a cool survivor and a car that looks almost ready to be sent to the south 40 as a parts car.

One word that may clarify the various terms being discussed is ” authentic “. A car may be restored using authentic original replacement parts or the parts that were original to that specific car, but it is still a restored car, an authentic restoration perhaps. On the other hand, it would be an authentic original only when maintenance items have been replaced and minor repairs or replacements made.
I consider my 1929 Hupmobile cabriolet to be an authentic original as only some deteriorated seat upholstery has been done to it and I knew the history of the car, which had only 18,000 miles on it in 1969 when I purchased it. It is not now nor will it be in my life time, restored.

This is a fascinating discussion. I tend to go with the original side, restored or unrestored. I actually like seeing and driving the old cars with their old technology– drum brakes all around, 6-volt generator and battery, changing gears with a clutch and overdrive if so equipped, bias-ply tires. Both my old cars are drivers– 20-footers that look very good, to be sure, but drivers nonetheless. I like being able to cruise around and just plain show folks that these old cars are still running and rolling. Okay, so I added seat belts because my wife wouldn’t ride in the cars without them. Okay, so they can’t stop as fast or go as fast as new cars– who cares? They’re still 1,000 times safer than the most modern motorcycle on the road.

I was at a car show a week ago with my 1948 Buick Super convertible, and the car next to me was a pristine 1932 Ford Deuce coupe, with a fiberglas body and all the goodies. The car was a stunner, and it drew as many– if not more– gawkers during the show as my 1970s-era restored Buick. The owner was a great guy. But he puzzled me when he said what he hated most about car shows was “seeing a Cobra replica.” Go figure.

Seems like there are some people on here who do not know what “Patina” is. If you look at the antique market (furniture, silverware, paintings etc.) you will have a better understanding. Patina will show age, character or add a warm glow to the piece. Wood was often varnished and in time, varnish will yellow. Silver will tarnish, leather will crack. The sun will provide a means of weathering & fading objects. Elements all have there effects…water can stain or rot wood, chlorine will take colour away, there are chemicals that will melt paint, rot rubber and disolve plastics. Sometimes Patina ruins a piece becuse the weathering is not even across the surface and becomes unpleasent to the eye. Character marks (dents, dings, thin paint & scratches) can sometimes add value, but most often these are not desired and can not always be considered part & parcel to Patina. Todays “Rat-Rod” crowd has grasped and fabricated the patina look to an art form. Paint is applied and then carefully sanded down to give a desired look. Metal and fabrics are stressed to show age or wear. There will always be a wide view on this hobby and what keeps us unique as we restore, preserve & modify our vehicles. I love tham all and hope the law makers allow us to keep our vehicles for others to see and enjoy into the future. We also must encourage the youth to become involved and teach them the terminology properly to lessen confusion as they grow. I am old and have some patina on me.

To each their own look at the car and put your own label on it. I like it all from rusted out yard art to over polished trailer queens. The thing is it’s your car do what you want with it. When people tell me what I should do to my car I tell them “hey thats a good idea you should do that to your car”. Thing is don’t bring me down I’m just out to have fun with my car and enjoy looking at yours.

Original- A vehicle that has all of the bits that it left the factory with. Looks like it just rolled off the showroom floor.

Survivor- Sort of like “original,” but honest “patina” is allowed.

Unrestored- A vehicle that has never been restored (duh!), but it may have had “normal wear” mechanical parts replaced with OEM or non-OEM parts. If it were restored, you wouldn’t be ruining its “originality.”

Complete Clunker: Parts donor. Can’t be fixed by mortals.

Barn find: Has been in covered/indoor storage long enough to build up a good thick coat of grime. Unregistered, uninspected, uninsured. You won’t be driving it home.

Preserve a car when: There is enough of the original paint and interior that the car can be carefully cleaned (gotta get the mouse poop out of there) and driven after some careful mechanical refurbishment. The car is safe for street use, or can be made safe for street use without modifications.

Restore a car when: The condition of the body and interior render the car no longer usable. Rust is likely to progress and damage the vehicle. The previous owner has bodged too many repairs and used too many non-standard parts for the car to be considered in any other class.

I’ll add my own thought on this as well:
Refurbish a car when: The body and/or interior require repair to be presentable, safe, and drivable, but a full-blown “restoration” isn’t warranted given the value and rarity of the vehicle, and the cost of restoration. The car has been modified in the past, and can’t be restored to mimic its original condition. You don’t care about a show car, you want to drive!

I find the trend to restore cars that really don’t need restoration slightly disturbing. If your car is running, driving, presentable but maybe not perfect, and you’re not looking to “show” your car, maybe it’s better to live with the flaws, enjoy the car, let the patina and history wash over you, and drive it! I understand that there will always be people who want a show car, a trailer queen, something that brings trophies, and that’s fine. If you want to do a “restoration,” find a car that needs it!

there are too many out there ,..who think they know how to ‘restore’ a car – they buy some bondo and a few rattle cans or cheap paint job , add mag wheels and presto – they are now a expert in car restoration ,..
many a good automobile has been ruined by some driveway hack ,..
finally the same values that applied to virtually every other collectable field, is starting to be recognized in the world of cars ,..
originality trumps a half assed restoration project any day of the week ,…